Those people are thinking just fine. With their wallets.
Why would they prioritize national interests? Because they were elected to do so?
After all they know they were actually elected because people were only given a couple of establishment approved choices, and in their naivety they happened to pick their side this time (after all they alternate between the two choices all the time).
They also know they'll be fine and have their salaries, extras, and nice corporate post-politic sinecures whetever their performance. Just see Blair.
>After all they know they were actually elected because people were only given a couple of establishment approved choices, and in their naivety they happened to pick their side this time (after all they alternate between the two choices all the time).
Australia has ranked choice voting and mandatory voting. What else could be done to “give” people more choices?
* some kind of proportional representation in lower houses or parliament (see e.g. New Zealand for a Westminster-compatible solution, or Switzerland for something more radical while still working with seats allocated by state populations).
* referendums on laws/treaties, and popular initiatives to propose constitutional changes and/or new laws (like in Switzerland or various western US states).
* reinvigoration of the federal principle that things that can be done by the states (or the local governments) should be done at that level, rather than the feds sticking their nose in everything (see, again, Switzerland).
>Australia has ranked choice voting and mandatory voting. What else could be done to “give” people more choices?
None of the above are even close to giving people choices.
Australia has a seat-by-seat majority-based system that favors the bigger parties (HoR).
Choices come when there's direct proportional elections.
Choices come when you don't need campaign support, advertising budgets, rich sponsors to be elected.
When they media don't sway to their (owners) favorite parties and candidates.
When you're not elected on an huge laundry list of a program, and then left to do whatever and backtrack on any and all promises until the next election with no consequences.
When there are direct referendums for major issues, regularly, not just to change the constitution in rare cases.
And many many other things besides, those are just some big ones.
> Why would they prioritize national interests? Because they were elected to do so?
How about because they are human people like you and me. You don't think you are a bad guy who always does things only in your own interest right? So why do you think they are like that?
How about if they really screw people over they know there will be mass protests
>How about because they are human people like you and me
Oh, sweet summer child.
>You don't think you are a bad guy who always does things only in your own interest right? So why do you think they are like that?
Because I wasn't promoted and passed all the exams of a system designed to promote sociopaths, party interests, and corporate/financial/M.I.C. interests, nor did I have the sociopathic self-selection to want to get to the highest offices of power.
Neither was Jeremy Corbyn, but he would have been Prime Minister if enough people had voted for him. Say what you will about him (I am not a fan), but he is not “establishment approved”.
> because people were only given a couple of establishment approved choices
Unless you think Jeremy Corbyn was establishment approved (!), this is clearly not true.
I’m not really sure what to make of your latest comment. Is your preferred world one where the media never criticize your favored politicians and the left wing of the Labour Party ruthlessly crushes internal dissent? If that’s what it would have taken to make Corbyn Prime Minister, then count me out.
Thank you for the feedback! I agree it does obfuscate the signature, possibly too much. I think it's okay as long as the user has the option to do both, with this made clear in the docs.
Also, yes I agree, RequestContext makes more sense!
Typical watch based sleep trackers and even my Withings sleep pad can’t really track my sleep properly, particularly REM sleep. I think I move too much. I bought a Dreem2 EEG device that measures brain waves and it could detect my REM sleep correctly, and determined that my sleep is actually fine, not great, but good enough.
Flip side to this, is I’ve had Carpal Tunnel for a while now, had surgery 2 years ago. It’s somewhat better and I am now active at the gym and in general it has helped a lot but extreme gripping such as deadhangs, deadlifts and heavy rows actually aggravates my symptoms. I started using straps for any weight over 50kg and my hands have got a lot better.
I’ve found that when you’re going from (weak, sedentary) => (strong, active) it can sometimes be difficult to discern what activities are good or bad for your pain. Sometimes you need to work through pain to find relief and strength on the other side, but sometimes working through pain just leads to more pain. The boundaries aren’t always clear at the time.
Yes..don't push past your pain limits. I have an old elbow injury from climbing. In the past if I did too much with it like pull ups it would inflame and then be useless again for weeks.
But slowly building up the hang time and then moving to 1 pull-up then to 2 and slowly over months to 5 and then 10 seems to keep it happy.
Be careful and slow but consistent and results should be good.
I don't think it's sad at all, I think it's a touching act of love. To spend your life caring for the work someone else left behind is generous and something I find admirable.
It seems the notions of accountability and responsibility have broken down when it comes to AI. Any given AI should have clear lines of delegated responsibility from an accountable flesh and bones human. Any decision made by an AI should be marked as such and provide a channel for the decision to be reviewed by said human or a human delegate thereof should scope (in Meta’s case) be large. If it’s too much work to manage the reviews, tough shit.
Hard disagree. I’m browsing the internet not surfing the Information Super Highway. Mainstream media needs to rely less on allegory once technology becomes mainstream.
LLMs aren't mainstream yet. When they are, it will simply be common cultural knowledge that they can (lie,hallucinate,confabulate,whatever) and metaphors won't be necessary, the way the internet became mainstream once it was common knowledge not to "feed trolls" or "click on spam."
At the moment, most people still think LLMs are basically like the computers from Star Trek, rational, sentient and always correct. Like those lawyers who used ChatGPT to generate legal arguments - it didn't even occur to them that AI could fabricate data, they assumed it was just a search engine you could talk to like a person.
This is why we still need metaphors to spread cultural knowledge. To that end I think it's less important to be technically accurate than to impart an idea clearly. "Hallucinate" and "confabulate" get the same point across, but the former is more widely understood.
Even "confabulate" isn't great, since it carries the connotation of either deception or senility/mental illness. But the "confabulation" of LLMs is inherent to their design. They aren't intended to discern truth, or accuracy, but statistical similarity to a stream of language tokens.
And humans don't really do that, so we don't really have language fit to describe how LLMs operate without resorting to anthropomorphism and metaphors from human behavior.
